undefined | Better HN

0 pointscolanderman2y ago0 comments

Bad analogy. Verizon's network is federated with all other telephony networks. iMessage does not federate.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

overstay89302y ago· 2 in thread

Verizon's network is as federated as iMessage, as in not at all. You can't just use Verizon for free, you pay for access through an authorized vendor or through Verizon themselves.

Just because something is accessible does not implicitly grant authorization, there are hundreds of court cases that have set that precedent (this is why you DON'T need an MOTD auth warning anymore). Not only is Beeper doing that, they're also profiting from their abuse. This is more than enough to be a major violation of the CFAA and this is probably what the DOJ is investigating.

colandermanOP2y ago

I don't follow your argument. Verizon's network is federated with AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, whomever. Messages can be routed freely between those networks unadulterated. That is what federation means.

To communicate via iMessage you must use Apple's servers. There are no other servers which can accept iMessage messages and forward them back and forth with Apple's server. (Only in a lossy manner, via MMS.) It is not a federated protocol.

Federation promotes competition. Preventing 3rd party access by any mechanism stifles competition.

If iMessage were federated, as in, Beeper could host their own servers which federate with Apple's, I think more of us would side with Apple here.

MichaelZuo2y ago

Don't all Verizon sim cards, by definition, rely on Verizon's servers? How can they be federated?

i.e. If every last Verizon server is shut down then they become small plastic bricks.

It wouldn't matter how many agreements have been signed with AT&T, T-mobile, etc...

1 more reply

pxmpxm2y ago· 1 in thread

In what way is that even remotely relevant?

NewJazz2y ago

In a highly practical and real-world way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse